• Home
  • Articles
  • Bio
  • Law

Cervantes

News, Law, Politics, Science, Health, Literature…

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Fifteen tips on how to live to 100
Learning the hard way »

Will there be blood?

March 28, 2009 by ab

The revival of American populism is partly synthetic, but mostly real

A WEEK or so ago America was seized by a spasm of fury over the bonuses paid to executives at AIG, a troubled insurance company. Across the country Americans were enraged that people who had helped to cause the financial meltdown were being rewarded for their incompetence. And Washington responded in kind.

Congressmen queued up before the television cameras to tell everybody how upset they were. Larry Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, described the bonuses as “outrageous”. Even Barack Obama tried to drop his ultra-cool persona to say how “angry” he was. The House voted overwhelmingly to impose a 90% tax on such bonuses.

The media responded to the storm of outrage by producing a stream of articles on American populism—the political disposition that damns established institutions, from Wall Street to Washington, and tries to return power to “the people”. Newsweek devoted almost an entire issue to the subject.

But no sooner was the ink dry on these articles than the populist storm seemed to blow itself out. Many of the journalists who had been fanning the flames of anger attended a white-tie Gridiron Dinner in Washington on March 21st to perform silly song-and-dance routines. Wall Street rallied two days later when the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, published his plan to tackle toxic assets held by banks. Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, suggests that bonus legislation “may not be necessary” now that 15 of the top 20 “bonus babies” at AIG have agreed to give their bonuses back.

Was the fuss over AIG a sign of a new populist mood in America? Or was it just a storm in a teacup? It is hard to answer this question in a country in which anger is a form of entertainment and where the political parties have turned partisanship into a fine art. Television personalities such as Bill O’Reilly are always angry about something or other. Many of the politicians who proclaimed their outrage at the “malefactors of great wealth” are delighted to take campaign contributions from the very same malefactors.

But, for all that, there are good reasons for taking the resurgence of populism seriously. One is the breadth of the discontent in the country. Left-wingers complain that Mr Obama is selling out his supporters in order to rescue irresponsible financial institutions. Right-wingers worry that he is using taxpayers’ money to save people from the consequences of their own profligacy. This fear has plenty of resonance outside the world of political enthusiasts: a recent Harris poll shows that 85% of Americans believe that big companies have too much influence on politicians and policymakers.

Another factor is the size of the slump. America has lost almost 2m jobs in the past three months. The number of job openings is down 31% from a year ago. Consumer confidence is falling on all fronts. Mortgage delinquencies are at a record high. The future of attempts to stimulate the global economy is also in jeopardy: European leaders have implied that they will oppose pressure from Americans and Chinese to produce their own stimulus programme at the forthcoming G20 meeting.

America may be witnessing the return of an old-fashioned version of populism, driven by economic anxiety and directed at economic interests. The people who gave the name to “populism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were worried about a prolonged agricultural depression and furious at the vested interests in Wall Street and Washington who, they thought, were responsible for that depression. Populists accused the elites of turning America into a land of “tramps and millionaires”.

This brand of populism went underground during the boom years, but Franklin Roosevelt revived it during the Depression. In one of his most passionate speeches, in 1936, he attacked the “economic royalists” of big business and the Republican Party.

In the 1960s economic populism was trumped by cultural populism. The Republican Party championed the interests of the “silent majority” against bra-burning feminists, civil-rights activists and effete liberals who were more interested in protecting the rights of criminals than preserving law and order. The Democrats made desultory attempts to revive economic populism in 2000 and in 2004: Al Gore campaigned for “the people against the powerful” and John Kerry denounced outsourcing companies. But this proved to be no match for the Republicans’ cultural populism. Now economic populism is returning to the heart of American politics.

This economic populism is made particularly potent by the long-term decline of faith in American institutions. The General Social Survey has been polling Americans about their confidence in major institutions (among other things) since 1972. The preliminary data for 2008 show a marked drop in confidence in every American institution since 2000 except military ones and education. The proportion of people expressing “a great deal of confidence” fell from 30% in 2000 to 16% in 2008 for big business, from 30% to 19% for banks, from 29% to 20% for organised religion, from 14% to 11% for the executive branch and from 13% to 11% for Congress. It was up, to 52%, for the armed services. These figures are the stuff that nasty movements are made of.

Populism poses serious problems for both political parties, not least because the very institutions which they spend their lives squabbling over are some of the least respected in the country, just above television and the press. The danger for Mr Obama and the ruling Democrats is that the administration is relying heavily on private investors and Wall Street banks to implement its various rescue plans. This inevitably means rewarding some of the people who were responsible for the crisis. The president hopes that his budget will channel destructive anger into support for his policies. But he could also find his administration blown off-course or even swept aside by popular outrage.

__________
Full article and photos: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13375986&source=hptextfeature

Advertisement

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment

    Recent Posts

    • Poem of the week: Autumn at Taos by DH Lawrence
    • Teaching Good Sex
    • Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result
    • This Is a … Oh, Never Mind
    • When Heaven Freezes Over
    • Into Thin Air
    • Poem of the week: Trenches: St Eloi by TE Hulme
    • Ten of the best sentences as titles
    • Poem of the week: Square One by Roddy Lumsden
    • Readmill Networks Lonely Bookworms
    • Salt of the Earth
    • ‘Berlusconi Is a Joke, Behind Him Is a Void’
    • Dutch Scientists Drive Single-Molecule Car
    • Poem of the week: Stone by Janet Simon
    • Poem of the week: Tiny Pieces by Billy Mills
  • Pages

    • Articles
      • Entertainment
        • - Pearls Before Breakfast
      • Newspapers
        • - How to read a column
      • Photo Galleries
      • Poetry
      • Strange but True
      • This Day in History
    • Bio
    • Law
      • - Constitutional Law
        • - The Queen becomes a kingmaker if no party is overall winner
      • - Contracts
      • - Criminal law
      • - Criminal procedure
      • - Evidence
      • - International law
        • - The Many Sources Governing Warfare
        • - The Nuremberg Judgment
      • - Legal dictionary
        • - Common law in French
        • - Parliament
      • - London Times
        • - One hundred cases that changed Britain
        • - Questions that have changed the course of criminal and civil trials
        • - Ten amazing courtroom scenes
        • - Ten literary classics
        • - The 10 most shocking jury indiscretions
        • - The Queen’s Privy Council
        • - The weirdest legal cases
        • - The weirdest legal cases of 2008
        • - The world’s strangest laws
      • - Others
        • - ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2007)
        • - ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2008)
        • - Cracking the Spine of Libel
        • - Decline is a choice
        • - Defending (some) sex offenders
        • - Fatwa Overload
        • - Free to Offend
        • - How to Build a Better Law Blog
        • - Let’s kill all the lawyers (Shakespeare)
        • - Mortimer Rests His Case
        • - Politics and the English Language (George Orwell)
        • - The Potato and the Law
        • - The Trouble with Military Tribunals
        • - Tips for Writing a Successful Legal Blog
        • - What’s a Liberal Justice Now?
        • - Why People Believe in Conspiracies
      • - Property
      • - Torts
      • - Trusts and estates
  • Categories

    • Animals
    • Arts
    • Arts and Entertainment
    • Biological sciences
    • Birds of America
    • Computers
    • Conflicts and wars
    • Economy and business
    • Editorials and opinion
    • Energy and Environment
    • Entertainment
    • Entertainment Today
    • French
    • German
    • Health
    • History
    • Human rights
    • Italian
    • Language
    • Law
    • Literature
    • Living
    • Mathematics
    • Media
    • Natural sciences
    • Notable and quotable
    • On Language
    • Other
    • Pepper and salt
    • Photo galleries
    • Physical sciences
    • Poetry
    • Politics
    • Popular culture
    • Practical advice
    • Religion
    • Social sciences
    • Space
    • Spanish
    • Strange but true
    • Summer Thrillers
    • Supreme Court decisions
    • The Ink Tank
    • The Week ahead
    • The Word
    • This day in history
    • Today's Papers
    • Travel and Transportation
    • Uncommon knowledge
    • Weird cases

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Powered by WordPress.com